Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Enterprise Solutions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Enterprise Solutions

Seems to be spam. Fails WP:CORP. In previous versions of the article, contact details for the company were even listed! Viridae 11:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:anything. Non-notable IT company - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Added by User:59.167.92.22: It should stay, to warn others if it happens in the future. Note left on their talk page. Viridae 11:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep if the alleged controversy surrounding their advertising can be verified. Would bring it into WP:CORP - "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Tevildo 11:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I got exactly 2 hits on a google search for "Energy Enterprise Solutions" set to pages from Australia because it is an australian company. They were from the same site. Viridae 11:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Can someone tell me what the "multiple non-trivial works" are? Or are we still looking for them? All I can locate is a forum full of worried kids who ordered lappies and are now awaiting their money back. Is this notable? --DaveG12345 12:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Nope. If it hit major news then it would become notable. A forum post (and you are looking at the same pages I found) is most definately not reliable or notable. Viridae 12:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above. Just thought we'd better check. Tevildo 14:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Why is it such an outrage I listed the contact details? I have seen contact details in other articles on Wikipedia! It is a new company (couple of months) that's why there are not many hits on Google. --Ansett 11:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment Listing contact details violates WP:NOT A7.7: "Wikipedia articles are not directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guide or a resource for conducting business (...) Wikipedia is not the yellow pages." --DaveG12345 12:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment please have a look at WP:CORP and indicate which of the requirements for inclusion it satisfies. If someone satisfies the community of the company's notability, it will be kept. Viridae 11:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

*Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues.

*The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself.

--Ansett 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry but Trivial coverage, such as simple price listings in product catalogues. is an exclusion. On the second point, it would be helpfull to reference the article and provide links or information about the non-trivial published works. Viridae 12:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like an eBay scammer, and might be notable as such -- the scam is still in the progress of playing out (see http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/forum-replies-archive.cfm/540472.html), so maybe there'll be some news coverage later. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-24 12:07Z
• Very Strong Delete Multiple violations. WP:VAIN (applicable to companies as shown in footnote one of WP:CORP), self-created by company rep, intrinsically fails WP:NPOV, WP:NOR (no cited third party sources) and WP:V. Also violation of WP:NOT A5 "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories". Main content on this article page is an ongoing news story about an apparently "unusual" laptop deal run by this firm. Initial edit of this article was clear advertisement for said laptops, violating WP:ADS and WP:NOT A7. Likewise, initial edit of external link (labelled "Forum about Energy Enterprise Solutions") linked to third party website selling laptops. Current version links to third party Australian Broadband Forum, where the default thread features victims of ongoing laptop sales deal (money taken, no laptops delivered) discussing the consequences. Strong circumstantial evidence of wanton self-publicity with no respect whatsoever for Wikipedia. Fails WP:CORP dismally by own admission (unknown, unremarkable, unverifiable two-month old company). --DaveG12345 12:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. & DaveG12345 --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as Spam. I had originally PROD'ed for deletion as a non-notable company. Less than 500 Google hits found. Ifnord 15:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Good Lord! Delete per DaveG and thanks to whoever coined that term. ~ trialsanderrors 17:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete burninate it. Danny Lilithborne 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per DaveG12345. --Coredesat 20:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - per DaveG12345 Doc Tropics 06:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not an Admin or a weatherman but I think it's starting to look like Snow --Doc Tropics 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Seconded. WP:SNOW --DaveG12345 10:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE - Do not blank any portion of this page! Thanks. --Doc Tropics 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Let's rethink this. If the company is failing to deliver computers that people have paid for, and this is happening on a large scale, then its misbehavior is newsworthy and notable. Wikipedia is not a list of recommended suppliers. I suspect that a good article on this company with references that discussed the risks inherent in dealing with it would dissuade most people from buying from the company. Sometimes notable means icky. --TruthbringerToronto 03:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I understand your thinking TT, and I would agree with you if the case were especially notable. However, this relatively minor incident would only be a brief story on a newscast, possibly with a short follow-up later; it just doesn't seem to be noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia. Even though we disagree, I appreciate your good intentions :) --Doc Tropics 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment I echo that, insignificant company is blatantly using WP to perpetuate their marketing. I'm amazed the article is still there. --DaveG12345 08:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.